Last Address: a civic initiative to commemorate victims of Soviet repressions

Jun 10 2018

On Monday, June 4, the Kennan’s Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel to introduce “The Last Address” project – a civic initiative to commemorate the victims of repressions in the Soviet Union which originated in Russia and is gradually spreading to other countries. The panelists talked about the origins, success, and challenges of the initiative.

On Monday, June 4, the Kennan’s Institute, a Washington-based think-tank, organized a panel to introduce “The Last Address” project – a civic initiative to commemorate the victims of repressions in the Soviet Union which originated in Russia and is gradually spreading to other countries. The panelists talked about the origins, success, and challenges of the initiative.

The panel included:

Sergey Parkhomenko, Journalist, “Echo of Moscow” Radio; a George F. Kennan Fellow at Kennan Institute and a founder of the “Last Address” initiative;Dmytro Belobrov, Head of “The Last Address” in Ukraine and a journalist at the independent Ukrainian channel Hromadske.ua;Grigory Frolov, Vice President of Projects and Development, Free Russia Foundation, Ukraine.

Moderated by Izabella Tabarovsky, the Senior Program Associate at Kennan Institute.

“One name – one life – one plaque”

Sergey Parkhomenko, a founder of “The Last Address” initiative, which started in 2014, said he was inspired by a memorial project of German artist Günter Demnig “Stumbling Stones”. “Stumbling Stones” – Stolperstein – started in 1993 and is still ongoing, and has been widely spread across Europe and commemorates the victims of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust from 1933-45 by installing commemorative brass pavement stones at their last place of residence or work.

“In Russia, we had another catastrophe,” said Parkomenko. “We had an if I can say, “Russian Holocaust.” It was four decades of Soviet political repressions” with all the republics and nations in the Soviet Union not being able to escape this “machine of extermination,” said Parkhomenko.

“The Last Address” project installs commemorative plaques the size of postcards to individual victims of Soviet repression at their last places of living: with their name, profession, date of birth, arrest, death, and rehabilitation. The idea behind the project is a “personalized” memorial – “one name – one life-one plaque” – where installation of plaques is proposed by a particular person who can be a relative of the repressed or just interested in the installation of the plaque.

The project is based on the vast historical database compiled by the Russian human rights group “Memorial,” which has the data of more than four million repressed across the former Soviet Union. To date, Parkhomenko said, more than 2,500 applications across Russia have been submitted through the project’s website and almost 800 plaques have been installed in more than 40 Russian cities. The project is also expanding into other countries – sister projects already exist in Ukraine and the Czech Republic and will soon start in Estonia, Georgia, Moldova and Romania.

“Value-based” and grassroots initiative

Dmytro Belobrov who coordinates “The Last Address” sister project in Ukraine said that for him, the project is involved in the restoration of principles that Ukrainian society might have forgotten. “This project is a part of a puzzle that would help us to restore our principles and to restore our modern understanding of us, the understanding that there is truth and we should fight for it,” said Belobrov.

Grigory Frolov, who heads Free Russia House in Kiev and supports the Ukrainian project said that an important part of it is its educational role in discussions on such difficult issues as a shared Soviet history, communication, repressions and the need to commemorate the victims of communism. The latter may not seem a priority in the country which has to commemorate those perished in an ongoing conflict in Eastern Ukraine, said Frolov, however for society to move forward, there is a need to understand the past which still affects many societies in post-Soviet countries.

Also, the de-communization process should not be a “political” but a “value-based thing which should go through the society,” said Frolov, adding that the project represents a grassroots “value-based” initiative based on the lives and stories of particular people. With this approach, it is easier to discuss de-communization with people who oppose it – particularly those in the eastern and southern parts of the country.

“We have so far put 18 plaques, mostly in Kiev and Odessa,” said Frolov, with Lviv, Dnipro, and Kharkiv to follow soon.

No big challenges

The public has been generally supportive of the initiative, said the panelists. “We had very few cases of vandalism,” said Parkhomenko, “from around 800 plaques we had 5-6 cases of situations of conflict”. One of the reasons for this lack of conflict is that the permission for installing the plaque is needed only from the residents of the buildings, and there is always an open discussion with them prior to the installation, said Parkhomenko.

Belobrov said there was one case of vandalism in Odessa. He noted it is more difficult to talk to people about the initiative in Odessa where some “communism clichés” arise. Yet according to the panelists, the personalized approach along with the grassroots level of the project helps to overcome these difficulties.

For many people, said Frolov, this project is a personal thing and “it goes from family to family,” being built on personal stories.

“It is very difficult to be against or criticize the project,” said Parkhomenko adding that in Russia, where the project hasn’t faced either support nor resistance from the authorities, even the state-media had a quite positive coverage of the project.

In Ukraine, said Frolov, there hasn’t been any negative stance from the authorities either. After the KGB archives were made public in Ukraine in 2015, it is very easy for the project’s volunteers to access archives with the data of the repressed.

However, in some parts of Russia such as Chechnya or Dagestan there may be some challenges, said Parknomenko, since the case applications based on political repressions should be separated from the inter-ethnic repressions, as the project doesn’t deal with the latter.

The panelists noted that “the Last Address” project is not just an “anti-Stalinist” but an “anti-totalitarian” due to repressions dating back since 1917. There has also been a plaque installed in Ukraine for Valeriy Marchenko, a Ukranian dissident who died in 1984.

“All totalitarian regimes with totalitarian repressions are the same,” said Parkhomenko which is the idea behind the project and its international sister initiatives.

Economic stagnation widens gap between Russian authorities and people

May 25 2018

On Friday, May 18, Free Russia Foundation and Atlantic Council organized an expert panel to discuss the politics and economics of Vladimir Putin’s fourth term as president. Experts expect further economic stagnation, with no structural economic reforms in sight, and discussed the growing gap between the Russian government and citizens.

“Russia is going through the biggest economic crisis since the collapse of the Soviet Union,” said Vladimir Milov yet “the government has no plan on how to address this.” Living standards in Russia have decreased significantly since 2014 and the economy is dominated by ineffective state monopolies, a low level of entrepreneurship, weak growth levels and an absence of foreign investment, said Milov.

That the system is unsustainable was already clear in 2013 – a year before the war in Ukraine and political sanctions – when economic growth was just about 1 percent despite quite high oil prices at the time, said Milov. “We built a paternalistic economy of redistribution rather than an economy that encourages private initiative, investment, innovation and increased productivity,” said Milov.

“The inadequacy of the system is understood by pretty much everybody, including a lot of people surrounding Vladimir Putin,” said Milov. Yet there is now “too much power centered around this particular figure,” who is not interested in real economic reforms.

Alina Polyakova said that despite the recent “lofty promises” of the Kremlin to focus on domestic and economic issues, it is unlikely that economic reforms are to be carried out since it “would undermine the regime itself.” “I think there is a linchpin here – for the regime to stay in power, for the Kremlin elite to stay in power, they have to maintain this patrimonial paternal system they have established,” said Polyakova. “If you think about self-preservation, which is the number one priority of Putin’s regime at this moment and for the foreseeable future, why would you do that [pursue economic reforms]?”

Anders Aslund also ruled out the possibility of any significant economic reforms in the near future. With an average of 1 percent growth over the last nine years, Putin didn’t have an economic plan before the elections, mainly running on the issue of Crimea, now in its fourth year of annexation, and after the elections he issued just “one tiny decree” with vague promises of improving the economy, with no concrete numbers, said Aslund.

Russia suffers from a steady capital flight of $30-40 billion a year – about 3% of GDP, with approximately $10-20 billion taken offshore, mainly illegally, by Putin’s cronies, according to Aslund. Russia has very little investment considering the level of its economic development, he said. Many innovators are leaving the country and the sanctions discourage Westerners from lending to Russia, whereas the country’s defense spending has increased from 3.3% of GDP in 2008 to 5.3% in 2017, and this in an economy with almost no economic growth, said Aslund.

And if one looks at the composition of the new government, which is headed by the same prime minister, who is himself suspected of corruption, and surrounded by technocrats mainly from the same inner circles, it is clear that “this is going nowhere,” said Aslund.

He added, “What we can say for sure is that there will be no reforms because Russia is a kleptocracy and it works for its rulers – it doesn’t work for its population.”

Priorities: geopolitics not living standards

While the government is occupied with geopolitics, ordinary Russians are faced with declining living standards. “We have a really huge gap between authorities and the population,” said Milov.

The majority of people support Putin’s current foreign policy initiatives – largely due to pervasive propaganda – but it is not on the list of their priorities, said Milov. People want the government to re-focus on domestic, social and economic issues, yet this not a priority for the government.

State TV continues to talk about Ukraine, Syria and Trump, said Milov. It says that people “have to suffer” because Russia is doing great geopolitically; people “should be patient” and in some time “things are going to get back to normal by themselves,” said Milov.

People are not given the real economic picture and perspectives, and the voice of the opposition is also unable to reach the majority of the population, said Milov. Yet people do feel there is a problem

“because of their [empty] pockets” and the opposition is working hard to reach out to them. There is a need to explain to people the link between Russia’s foreign policy and declining living standards.

Milov said that the government has been successful in spreading the message that any alternative to Putin would create “total chaos.” Also, given the historical experience, Russian people are skeptical of radical changes and are afraid of the unknown, said Milov.

“It is quite difficult to try to change the situation, but it is also very possible and this is something that the opposition has been doing,” said Milov.

Alina Polyakova said that the regime seems to be “nervous and anxious” regarding “its own ability to maintain control,” with the population “becoming more disillusioned with the system.” The previous social contract between the government and people – to provide economic growth in exchange for political rights – seems to have been re-written since 2012 into a new form which stresses Russia’s role as a “great power” and the Russian “people have to pay for this.” Yet is questionable how long this new contract will be sustainable, said Polyakova.

It is also essential, said Polyakova, to directly link Putin with the government in the eyes of the Russian people. Despite the low level of trust the Russian people have in the government, Putin’s approval ratings remain high as if Putin were somehow “above” the government.

Anders Aslund said that although the regime doesn’t look sustainable, one has to be cautious in assessing the future since Soviet history shows the regime “can last for many years.”

What the West can do though, said Aslund, is to continue to reveal Russian kleptocrats and their hidden money abroad. The West should continue adopting legislation that would reveal the beneficial owners of the anonymous companies offshore that are together estimated to be hiding up to $1 trillion of Russian money.

by Valeria Jegisman

Russia’s new generation of democratic forces

May 15 2018

Free Russia Foundation recently hosted in Washington a delegation of pro-democracy municipal officials and activists from Russia. The delegates, representing various local government and political movements in Russia, participated in a series of panel discussions focusing on the recent success of the Russian opposition at the local level – and hopes for changing the political landscape and building bridges with the West.

Free Russia Foundation organized the panel discussions jointly with the Henry Jackson Foundation on May 4 and with the Atlantic Council on May 7. The following is a selection of key take-outs from the events:

Natalia Arno, president of Free Russia Foundation, said that alternative leaders are beginning to emerge in Russia. In September 2017, there was a breakthrough in Moscow’s municipal elections, in which pro-democracy candidates won over 200 seats, becoming the second largest political power in the Russian capital. This focus on local politics is a new strategy of the democratic movement in Russia, said Arno. With over 200,000 municipal seats across the country, local government could be the key to a democratic future in Russia. “The new generation of Russia’s democratic politicians has the vision, the long-term strategy and the determination to continue its fight to make Russia free, democratic and prosperous,” said Arno.

Vladimir Kara-Murza, chairman of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation and vice-chairman of Open Russia, said that in authoritarian states local government is often the only place for “real political life,” where candidates have a close relationship with citizens. At this level, as Kara-Murza said, “official state propaganda loses some of its dominance” and municipal elections reveal the real public opinion, a potential “precursor” for significant political change.

Local government can also play a significant role in national or even international importance, said Kara-Murza. As one example, he cited Washington, D.C., City Council’s recent decision to rename a street in front of the Russian Embassy after Boris Nemtsov, after a similar initiative stalled in the U.S. Congress. The D.C. initiative was carried out under the leadership of Phil Mendelson, who was also a special guest at the Free Russia Foundation event.

Julia Galiamina, a municipal deputy of Moscow’s Timiryazevsky District, said, “The democratization of Russia is only possible from the bottom up because democratizing forces at the top has proven to lead back to the authoritarian regime.” As the success of the 2017 local elections has shown, there are resources and potential at the local level and democratic forces need not move up, but horizontally, to spread democracy and to embrace civil society. During the last seven years, Galiamina said, there has been a rise in grassroots initiatives and civic activity, with people becoming more concerned about various local issues and starting to stand up for their rights. By embracing civic activism, people are moving toward new democratic ideas and democratic leaders should support these movements. The strategy, said Galiamina, should be to help people to become citizens, citizens to become civil activists, and civil activists to become local public office holders. Yet there is also the problem of a low level of trust towards authorities and a fear of politicization, said Galiamina. “One of our goals is to revive trust in politics and democratization,” she said.

Natalia Shavshukova, an organizer of the School of Local Governance and a former municipal deputy of the Levoberezhny District in Moscow, said that democracy cannot be forced on Russia – rather, it is a process and its values need to be advocated. Since democratic forces are excluded from the federal level and often from the regional level, the local level has become the main stage of democratic governance in today’s Russia. Yet there are also opportunities, as the success in last year’s municipal elections in Moscow has shown. “We should go further to replicate the success of Moscow’s city elections in other parts of Russia,” said Shavshukova, adding that the recent success owes itself to collaboration between different democratic groups, mainly new and unofficial ones.

Supporting protests is important since it builds solidarity and civil society, but if a rapid political change were to occur, there could be an issue with professional qualifications. The School of Local Governance provides training to local activists and members of liberal parties and movements, with more than 500 alumni across Russia, including 149 candidates who won seats in the Moscow elections last year, said Shavshukova. Looking at the big picture, there are 200,000 seats in local municipalities throughout Russia, with an additional 4,000 regional deputies and 450 State Duma deputies. But there is a lack of qualified candidates at the moment, said Shavshukova.

Vladislav Naganov is a municipal deputy in Khimki District Council, Moscow Oblast, who has largely built his campaign on the legacy of Evgenia Chirikova – a prominent environmental activist. Naganov said it is extremely important to build the political base and voter support for municipal deputies, which may pave the way for success at the regional and federal level. The network of supporters can grow through various local initiatives, including homeowner associations and environmental campaigns – the latter has enjoyed strong support in the Moscow region, said Naganov. Support can also be found among those who oppose the Moscow Oblast governor’s plans to centralize power in the region by transforming municipals districts into urban jurisdictions, which have appointed leaders as opposed to elected ones.

“Our only chance is to continue our hard work and to prepare for unexpected victories if the opportunity emerges,” said Naganov.

by Valeria Jegisman

Russian Americans Say Keep It Up, President Trump

Apr 16 2018

The Congress of Russian Americans, a group claiming to represent five million Russian-speaking Americans, recently wrote to US President Donald Trump deploring the state of Russian-American relations, denouncing the expulsion of sixty Russian diplomats from the United States, and denying Russia’s involvement in the recent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, England. It also alleges that Russian speakers face “serious discrimination” in America.More

In response, an independent group of Russian-speaking immigrants has released a letter that disputes these claims. Well-known human rights activists, filmmakers, writers, journalists, lawyers, scientists, engineers, university professors, medical doctors, artists, professionals in various areas, and ordinary Russian-speaking Americans have signed the response, which says that the Congress of Russian Americans (CRA) does not represent them or their values. Calling the CRA letter “yet another act ” in Russia’s ongoing info war against the United States, its 142 signatories say that they are “are appalled by the CRA’s audacity in their attempt to create an impression they speak for the entire Russian-speaking community.”

We, the undersigned, are Americans who immigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union and Russia. We come from different professional spheres and we do not represent any interests of the Russian government or its proxies.

We are addressing you in reaction to the letter reportedly sent to you by the chairperson of the Congress of Russian Americans (CRA), a seemingly pro-Kremlin organization. Broadly circulated in various media and social networks, and supported by the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin-controlled propaganda networks, Sputnik and RT (Russia Today), that letter claims to represent the opinion of “5 million Russian-speaking Americans.” It deplores the state of Russian-American relations, the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats, and emphatically denies Russia’s involvement in recent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, UK. The letter also maintains that the negative connotation of Russia in American media leads to the discrimination of Russian-speaking community in the USA. There is little doubt that the CRA letter is yet another act in an ongoing informational warfare waged against the United States by the Russian government. We are appalled by the CRA’s audacity in their attempt to create an impression they speak for the entire Russian-speaking community. Likewise, we find it troubling that the CRA letter received wide coverage in the government-controlled media inside the Russian Federation, adding to its relentless manipulation of public opinion.

The segment of Russian speakers that we represent does not share any of that text’s claims. We do not support actions and activities of the Russian government and President Putin, which threaten peace, stability and democratic values whether in Georgia, Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe or USA. We fully support the measures by the American administration against the Russian ruling elite, including expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats. We strongly condemn unlawful actions of the Russian government for its various acts of aggression against its neighbors, its shameless interference in political affairs of many countries and its acts of terrorism abroad, especially its recent chemical attack in Salisbury, UK. We also draw your attention to the unlawful repressions of internal dissent, and persecution of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in illegally annexed Crimea. We expect the US administration to develop a consistent policy on Russia founded on respect for human rights and centuries-long American democratic values.

Finally, none among our numerous respondents reported any incidents of discrimination due to their Russian origin. Despite all the tensions and complications caused by the current Russian leadership, we feel welcome in America and appreciate freedom and opportunities in our new American homeland.

We trust that our voice is heard and accorded the most serious attention for the sake of security and prosperity of this country of which we became its legitimate and proud constituents.

We, the undersigned, are Americans who immigrated to the United States from the former Soviet Union and Russia. We come from different professional spheres and we do not represent any interests of the Russian government or its proxies.

We are addressing you in reaction to the letter reportedly sent to you by the chairperson of the Congress of Russian Americans (CRA), a seemingly pro-Kremlin organization. Broadly circulated in various media and social networks, and supported by the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Kremlin-controlled propaganda networks, Sputnik and RT (Russia Today), that letter claims to represent the opinion of “5 million Russian-speaking Americans.” It deplores the state of Russian-American relations, the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats, and emphatically denies Russia’s involvement in recent poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter in Salisbury, UK. The letter also maintains that the negative connotation of Russia in American media leads to the discrimination of Russian-speaking community in the USA. There is little doubt that the CRA letter is yet another act in an ongoing informational warfare waged against the United States by the Russian government. We are appalled by the CRA’s audacity in their attempt to create an impression they speak for the entire Russian-speaking community. Likewise, we find it troubling that the CRA letter received wide coverage in the government-controlled media inside the Russian Federation, adding to its relentless manipulation of public opinion.

The segment of Russian speakers that we represent does not share any of that text’s claims. We do not support actions and activities of the Russian government and President Putin, which threaten peace, stability and democratic values whether in Georgia, Ukraine, the Middle East, Europe or USA. We fully support the measures by the American administration against the Russian ruling elite, including expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats. We strongly condemn unlawful actions of the Russian government for its various acts of aggression against its neighbors, its shameless interference in political affairs of many countries and its acts of terrorism abroad, especially its recent chemical attack in Salisbury, UK. We also draw your attention to the unlawful repressions of internal dissent, and persecution of Crimean Tatars and Ukrainians in illegally annexed Crimea. We expect the US administration to develop a consistent policy on Russia founded on respect for human rights and centuries-long American democratic values.

Finally, none among our numerous respondents reported any incidents of discrimination due to their Russian origin. Despite all the tensions and complications caused by the current Russian leadership, we feel welcome in America and appreciate freedom and opportunities in our new American homeland.

We trust that our voice is heard and accorded the most serious attention for the sake of security and prosperity of this country of which we became its legitimate and proud constituents.

Putin’s next term: experts expect further deterioration in relations with Russia

Apr 07 2018

This week, experts gathered at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think-tank, to discuss Russia’s recent presidential elections and Vladimir Putin’s next term. The experts largely expect relations between Russia and the West to deteriorate, while also calling into question Putin’s popularity at home.

Strobe Talbott said that we are in a Cold War 2.0, with Russia returning to autocracy and seeking to expand its dominance outside the country’s borders and to weaken the West. However, there are also differences with the Cold War, which makes the situation more alarming. For instance, there is “no process underway to mitigate the peril of a hot war,” said Talbott. There is no arms control mechanism between Russia and NATO and whereas “old treaties are wasting away,” new treaties are needed for areas such as the digital space.

Talbott said there is concern over “transatlantic confidence and institutions” due to “the stalled European project” and the lack of coherent policy towards Russia with president Trump, who has expressed an affinity for Putin and has hesitated to condemn autocratic leaders.

Talbott said that the West should be aware that the situation could get worse, saying Putin is dangerous because “he has gotten away with so much, so he will try to get away with more.”

Angela Stent said that President Putin is likely to continue to exploit the differences and policy disparities between the U.S. and the European Union. The current U.S. administration, she said, takes a tough approach towards Russia, but President Trump has held on to a belief of having a “forward-looking relationship with Putin.” In the EU, although countries have shown solidarity with Great Britain in the aftermath of the Sergey Skripal poisoning, it is far from “perfect unity.” With some EU leaders urging for dialogue and cooperation with Russia, it is clear for Putin that “nobody likes a high level of tensions.”

Julia Ioffe added that she would expect “to see more adventurism” from the Russian government. She said the reaction from the West on the poisoning of Sergey Skripal seems to have been unexpected for Putin, pushing him further into “a corner.” In order to get out, Putin might respond with another “spectacular egregious act” in the year to come. Putin is also still trying to renegotiate “the terms of surrender in the Cold War,” and to show that Russia is equal with the West and not a “child” who can be punished. Looking forward, Ioffe agreed that “things will get far worse before they get better.”

Real popularity?

Vladimir Kara-Murza said that the Western media still uses the word election in relation to Russia, without quotation marks and most of the world leaders congratulated Putin on the victory. This despite the OSCE’s statement that Russia’s presidential elections were “a choice without real competition,” as strong candidates were eliminated and critical voices were muffled. In Russia, says Kara-Murza, the elections have lost their purpose, with rules being shifted and “the end result never in doubt.” Kara-Murza said that assertions of Putin’s popularity “have never been tested in fair elections.”

Yet this applies to elections on all levels in Russia, noted Kara-Murza. In Yekaterinburg, the fourth largest city in Russia, the authorities have just abolished direct mayoral elections, said Kara-Murza, as they realized they couldn’t win over the popular and outspoken opposition candidate and current mayor Yevgeny Roizman. Mayors are only directly elected in seven regional capitals, which is less than a tenth of all the regional capitals, said Kara-Murza. “Directly elected mayors used to be a norm in Russian cities,” said Kara-Murza, “but are now fast approaching extinction.”

Ioffe added that in the aftermath of the tragic fire in the Siberian city Kemerovo on March 25th, when the “very popular” Putin visited the city, the streets were cleared from people and the president did not meet with grieving people. Putin only met with the governor, who apologized to Putin, not to people, which shows “who is accountable to whom and the popularity of the president.”

“Phenomenal hypocrisy”

Stent noted that the Russian economy and money, unlike that of the Soviet Union, are integrated into the West, which makes it more difficult for Western countries to respond to Russia’s behavior.

Russian money “is very present in Great Britain,” which is one of the reasons Great Britain didn’t apply any strong measures against Russia after the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. But this money is also very present in the U.S and its luxury real estate added Stent.

Kara-Murza said the elites of Putin’s regime “want to steal in Russia,” but to stash their wealth and families abroad. He said there is a “phenomenal hypocrisy” – a situation where people who violate basic human rights and rule of law in their own country, use the same privileges in the West. Moreover, the West, praising itself for democracy, rule of law and human rights, has been welcoming these people and their “dirty” money for a decade.

In terms of the violation of human rights, said Kara-Murza, Russia today is comparable to the late Soviet Union, with 146 political prisoners according to a modest estimate. He praised the adoption of the Magnitsky Act in 2012, which allows personal sanctions against those involved in the abuse of human rights and corruption, but said more should be done.

Polyakova emphasized that the West needs to use personal sanctions, not broad economic sanctions that harm the economy and people as a result.

Donate now

The Free Russia Foundation depends on your charitable gift to continue our work. Your contribution is tax-deductible and helps us continue our aid programs and advocacy campaigns. With your help, we are building hope for a democratic future for Russia.